tom said: > I wasn't disputing that it's cheaper, I have issues with the pixel > "math". Everytime digital vs film comes up, someone brings out their > slide rule and proceed to "prove" that digital is X years away from > equaling film. > > The proof is in the prints, and the prints are looking pretty good.
Film has better resolution than digital, until around 11 or 14 megapixels. But film has grain in a small number of colors while digital has xxx bit pixels with noise. And I think you can just have chunkier pixels and still get a pleasing picture if those pixels are close to the true color rather than a dither, like the distinct red and green spots I found when I enlarged a squirrel. Some digital cameras cool the CCDs to reduce noise, but I don't know if that's true of the snapshooting cameras or just of the fixed cameras in labs and observatories.
